This Man Has The TV Industry Scared To Deathhttp://www.businessinsider.com/aereo-ceo-chet-kanojia-2014-3/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Fri, 09 Dec 2016 22:58:05 -0500Steve Kovachhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/53238fc16da811f1031ad617André Kenji De SousaFri, 14 Mar 2014 19:24:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53238fc16da811f1031ad617
ZDF has good newscasts, that´s money well spent.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5322c31cecad04043c2bdd21Wanda HalpertFri, 14 Mar 2014 04:51:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5322c31cecad04043c2bdd21
Legacy business models die out and are replaced with new digital technology. Everything from entertainment, to work, to medicine is changing rapidly.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5322144169bedd2313ce4b07Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 16:25:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5322144169bedd2313ce4b07
Yeah, I know. Aereo's lawyers were apparently able to buffalo a lot of legal professional types. But even if this wins at the SCOTUS level, you know darn well that 3 hours later, Congress will pass the "Fuck Aereo In The Ass Act of 2014".http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53220c52ecad0436419602ceDevalThu, 13 Mar 2014 15:51:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53220c52ecad0436419602ce
Case closed? Are you joking? After a whole string of judges decided in Aereo's favor, many of them explicitly stating in their rulings that the prosecution's changes of prevailing on appeal were slim?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ec0eeab8eac75e537931Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 13:34:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ec0eeab8eac75e537931
Who cares? Is the user the copyright holder? If not, then they can't give Aereo permission to store the programs on anything, requested or not.
Which is a side point anyway. Aereo can't legally re-encode and retransmit the programming, regardless.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321eaf269bedd68645daebdcitizen1Thu, 13 Mar 2014 13:29:22 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321eaf269bedd68645daebd
Yeah, sure, the user has to "request" it. That is a technical BS since Aereo is recording everything all the time in one place, whether or not it is "request"ed. The user could "request" to record everything all the time. Or after a few uses, the user could wind up having "request"s to record every episode of every program.
Aereo is making a single recording of The Simpsons, not 5,000 recordings, or 50,000 recordings, in individual DVR boxes.
If Aereo has proof that they have an individual DVR for each one of their paying users, they can prove that easily - let court officials in to see that. Pictures (Photoshopped) will not count.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ea146da811413a760449Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 13:25:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ea146da811413a760449
"Aereo justifies its model by pointing out that it supplies each individual customer with a reception antenna"
… which is a lie.
Those little things they claim are the antennas, aren't. The antenna has to be tuned to the wavelength of the actual station to be useful. Those are MUCH too small for the VHS stations like WABC, WPIX and WNET in NYC, and would be extremely inefficient for all the others.
And at any rate, they are not relaying the original broadcast streams, but re-encoding (and STORING) them. Even if the antennas were legal, the re-encoding is not.
It's a retransmission, not a rental. And they have been explicitly denied retransmission consent. Case closed.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321e56969bedd0e525daeafJaviér the JaguarThu, 13 Mar 2014 13:05:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321e56969bedd0e525daeaf
The problem with your analysis is that recording through Aereo's DVR service have to be requested by the user. From the Aereo FAQ:
You can record from the promotions that appear on the home screen, the channel guide, the news feed, and the search tool by clicking the "Record" button. You can also select "Record" while you are watching a show. When you hit the record button, you have the option to record just this once, every new episode, or all episodes. All of your recordings can be found under the recordings tab of your account. To learn more about managing your recordings, click here.
If you have proof that Aereo is bulk recording and distributing programming that has NOT been requested by one or more of its users, post it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321dd3b69bedd61325daeadDean WormerThu, 13 Mar 2014 12:30:51 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321dd3b69bedd61325daead
I spent 20 years in television and 15 years in digital media, I am familiar with both sides. The TV business is all about content and could care less about technology. The tech people are all about tech and think that content is their bitch and all this copyright stuff is just so annoying.
So far tech has killed the newspaper business, the music business, the magazine business and injured the radio business. The TV business is like 10x the size of those guys so this one is gonna be a tough fight.
The other difference is that broadcasting is attached at the wrist and ankles with politics and sports. GFL taking them down.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d796eab8ea110e537932trecerThu, 13 Mar 2014 12:06:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d796eab8ea110e537932
There's a reason Aereo has been winning all of its cases on the way to the Supreme Court. The retransmission consent rule established by Congress (in response to the Supreme Court's earlier decision *permitting* cable operators to rebroadcast tv without paying the networks, based on the logic that cable rebroadcast did not constitute a public performance) specifically applies only to cable, not to over-the-air transmission. Aereo justifies its model by pointing out that it supplies each individual customer with a reception antenna and therefore its service of retransmission does not constitute a "public performance" of the networks' content but rather a private performance of that content enacted by each individual user.
If Aereo is illegal, then antennas are also illegal. Aereo is no more than an antenna plus a recorder. Both antennas and tv recording devices are legal. It is legal to sell antennas to customers and it is legal to sell tv recorders to customers. Therefore putting them together and charging for it is also legal.
Aereo's case at the Supreme Court is more likely to overturn the retransmission consent rule than to be subjected to that rule.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d45decad045d789602d7Dean WormerThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:53:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d45decad045d789602d7
Broadcast TV is free. Put up an antenna. Cable costs money to operate the wires and, yes, pay the license fees. But these are market forces at work. We don't dictate that. You could argue that cable is a utility and should be more regulated, like power, gas and telephone. Perhaps.
But that doesn't change the copyright issues in this case. Aereo is going to be told to pay a fee to the broadcasters which, my guess, will invalidate their business model.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d40beab8ea887d53792bhammermanThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:51:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d40beab8ea887d53792b
Umm has Aereo ever heard of IP law?
Most open source licenses or even (free licenses) allow the end user to use the content....but the moment you profit off it or use it outside the scope of what an end user would you are infringing on the intellectual property.
Just because Ubisoft gave you a free sample game doesn't mean you can turn around and stream it to others and charge them a fee for it..You don't have a license to redistribute the IP, make references to their trademarks and most certainly do not have a license to profit off something you didn't create.
The rule of thumb with IP law is....if you did not create it you cannot use it unless you have a specific license that says you can.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d0aa6da811cb41760453Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:37:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321d0aa6da811cb41760453
Wrong. I used to be in the industry, but that was years ago. It does, however, make me more knowledgable about the situation than, say, you. And I'm just telling it like it is. Please point out where I've been wrong, with references. (Your Ron Paul fan club card doesn't count.)
I just enjoy correcting wrong people on the internet. You never run out of them, especially on BI.
As for the industry, it's just going to have to collapse without Aereo's help. Obviously the networks aren't going to abandon broadcast if Aereo wins. That would be stupid.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ce1becad04da639602d3Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:26:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ce1becad04da639602d3
First of all, the "community antenna" concept used to be legal, but it isn't now. The 1992 United States Cable Television Protection and Competition Act put a stop to it. So that argument won't float in court.
The rest of the stuff you brought up is irrelevant. All you're saying is that Aereo should be legal because it's cheaper and they don't break out the costs. That don't float either.
This case is being tried in the U S of A, and the laws are what's going to decide it. (Or should be.) And the law is on the broadcasters' side. These theoretical arguments about how things SHOULD work in Utopia-land are not relevant.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321cc486da811a630760451JR WirthThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:18:32 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321cc486da811a630760451
Usually a BI Headline tends to be overblown. In this case it might be right on the money. Some posters here appear to be scared to death over this little company. I'm guessing with their passion their meal tickets are coming from broadcast media. It's terrible to be in a collapsing industry. Not fun at all.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321cbda6bb3f7de40465f06Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:16:42 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321cbda6bb3f7de40465f06
The following is my theory:
The broadcasters know just as well as I do (and you SHOULD) that the Aereo "micro-antennas" are fake, and they aren't renting jack shit.
So why don't they make that argument in court? It's a damn good question.
Are their lawyers just idiots when it comes to electromagnetics? Possibly.
More likely, though, it's that, although Aereo is lying about renting antennas, the *idea* is technologically feasible. Some clever fool might just buy up some rocky hillside somewhere, put a gazillion *REAL* full-size TV antennas on it, and literally rent them, stripping the actual broadcast MPEG-2 streams and streaming them over the internet. (The bandwidth requirements would be ghastly now, but technology marches on, don't it.) That WOULD probably be legal, and the broadcast networks don't want to win this particular case by accidentally codifying that "Aereo model" as being legal. So they're fighting it on retransmission grounds, rather than the much easier and more obvious "Aereo is SO full of shit" strategy.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I play one in the BI comments section. What part do YOU play?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321caca6da8114a2b760451Mr ThriftyThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:12:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321caca6da8114a2b760451
>Aereo isn't free either.
Of course, but at least you aren't paying a content fee over and above the cost of the remote located antenna, receiver and bandwidth.
You also aren't forced into renting a set-top-box to decode the encrypted local channels on cable that you used to get without a box.
Basically, Aereo is like the rural "community antenna" concept which started cable TV in the first place. Later, cable added HBO, etc and started turning it into a pay-TV model...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c9926da8117021760455Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:06:58 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c9926da8117021760455
This.
If you're going to get mad about something, this is the one that's worth your time and energy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c9416bb3f74b39465f0fHero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 11:05:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c9416bb3f74b39465f0f
"Saying that an antenna is not real because you can't reliably receive every channel is also a false argument."
Digital broadcasting includes several streams on each signal. So if, for instance, I can receive channel 5.1, that means I also have channels 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 etc. They're literally part of the same signal.
By some unexplained miracle of magic and sorcery, the Aereo "antenna" you're renting can pick up some of those but not others. So no, it's not a false argument.
Next?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c7ceeab8ea5457537936Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 10:59:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c7ceeab8ea5457537936
Yep. That's the difference.
The legal umpf: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_consent" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_consent</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c5a8ecad0433439602e0trecerThu, 13 Mar 2014 10:50:16 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c5a8ecad0433439602e0
Yes, but where's the actual legal Umpf in what you're saying: "If you own a delivery method, you don't get to use it to deliver SOMEONE ELSE'S programming without their permission, whether that method is a TV station or an internet service." What law are you citing? What legal basis? You're just citing your own gut reaction, and the Supreme Court isn't going to buy that.
Again, if a guy can legally purchase scads of Trader Joes products and set up a store in Mexico to sell exclusively TJ products (as decided by the recent court case), then I don't see why Aereo's model is any different. The only difference is that something given out for free comes with a delivery charge.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c4bd6da811ae11760449Your friends at Comcast CableThu, 13 Mar 2014 10:46:21 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c4bd6da811ae11760449
No fear comrades! Even if the evil Aereo gets through the court of law, 40% of you will have your bandwidth throttled if you even dream of using this service. We can't have you using our internet service to subvert our television services. That just isn't fair to us. Don't like it? Get another internet service!
Oh wait, there isn't another one available? BAHAHAHA, sucks you to be you peons.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c277eab8ea6f3d537930dugThu, 13 Mar 2014 10:36:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c277eab8ea6f3d537930
It's obviously not such a clear cut case if it is going all of the way to the Supreme Court. TV signals are broadcast to everyone over the airwaves for free and in exchange the companies doing so get exclusive access and use of the frequencies involved. In effect they are sanctioned near monopolies. Now the broadcast companies are saying you can only use the type of antenna that they approve to receive a transmission. It seems like a very weak argument to me. Saying that an antenna is not real because you can't reliably receive every channel is also a false argument. Anyone who has used an antenna to receive broadcasts knows that there are often reliability issues when receiving broadcasts. People used to make fun of having to hold an antenna just so to receive a good signal.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c1e6ecad04503c9602d5Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 10:34:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321c1e6ecad04503c9602d5
It IS different. Read the comments, please. Don't just come on here and spout ignorance.
Feel free to "thumbs down" reality if it makes you feel any better.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321bfc1ecad04702f9602d9mvigodThu, 13 Mar 2014 10:25:05 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321bfc1ecad04702f9602d9
Networks make money on eyeballs. they just want to double dip and get paid for eyeballs and the content too. Before cable it was 100% advertising, period. Streaming over the internet is no different than if I hook up an antenna and catch their signal off the air so why do they care?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b9d56bb3f72c04465f08Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:59:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b9d56bb3f72c04465f08
Reminder: Aereo isn't free either.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b7f56bb3f7eb7c465f01Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:51:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b7f56bb3f7eb7c465f01
Dean Wormer and citizen1 have it exactly right, but one other point: Yes, the antenna and DVR *do* have to be hardware, and in fact Aereo claims that they *are* hardware when in fact they are not.
Remember, if you are "renting an antenna" as you claim, then you should be able to watch all the channels that are broadcasting in the area. Aereo doesn't let you do that. There are literally hundreds of stations broadcasting in NYC that you can get on an antenna, but not on Aereo. So what are you renting?
Nothing, is what. The signals are being picked up by a single central antenna, RE-ENCODED by Aereo's software, and then RETRANSMITTED as streaming video, which they then provide access to, for a fee. Which LITERALLY makes them a cable system. And thus, by law, they must have the stations' permission to retransmit.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b6cd6bb3f7ca75465f11Mr ThriftyThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:46:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b6cd6bb3f7ca75465f11
>All of that content on those stations and the networks that feed them is copyrighted. It is licensed to particular outlets for a particular airing in a particular geography. It is how the local stations make a living and give you FREE entertainment. Yes free.
It's NOT free when they charge me for it. When they bill the cable company for the OTA content, ultimately, I pay for this as part of my cable bill.
In reality, the cable company should be allowed to charge the TV station for providing transmission bandwidth so people, who wouldn't otherwise be able to get their crummy terrestrial signal, can become viewers.
OTA broadcast content should be supported by commercials ONLY, as the original businesses model was designed to be. Then it's a level playing field between what cable and terrestrial viewers pay. This in return for using OUR public radio frequencies.
Out model is different from the British model where you pay a TV tax for broadcast service. We should keep it that way.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b5af69beddb01d5daeadHero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:42:07 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b5af69beddb01d5daead
BL, there is no government-run domestic broadcaster in the USA. There never has been.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b323ecad040f039602dbHero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:31:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b323ecad040f039602db
The delivery method IS part of the problem. If you own a delivery method, you don't get to use it to deliver SOMEONE ELSE'S programming without their permission, whether that method is a TV station or an internet service.
ALso, as I stated in the first post, Aereo CLAIMS their service is an antenna booster, but it is not. The tiny metal things they claim are the antennas are too small to reliably receive the crappy ATSC signals you described at the beginning of your comment. Also, you'll notice that Aereo doesn't carry ALL the local broadcast stations (low-powers, foreign languages, obscure subchannels, etc.), which would be available to you if it were a REAL antenna.
The second half of your analysis (about the broadcasters' attitude to the thing) is spot on.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b1676bb3f7c86a465f00Hero's DutyThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:23:51 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321b1676bb3f7c86a465f00
Union regulations, my friend. Streaming internet content is considered separate from broadcast, and AFTRA and SAG members get paid more for streamed content relative to broadcast. So no, they can't just stream their shows at the same time with the exact same commercials.
The more you know.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321adff6bb3f7ce55465f0dDean WormerThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:09:19 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321adff6bb3f7ce55465f0d
The time shifted DVR audience is already being measure and sold but discounted partially because of the time shift and partly because of the commercial skipping capability....http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ad17ecad04c1779602ccDean WormerThu, 13 Mar 2014 09:05:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321ad17ecad04c1779602cc
citizen1 is correct. You need to not focus on the technology. Forget about what you think of the big evil cable companies. This is all about copyright. It is very clear intent to steal and resell copyrighted material en masse. Lots of case law on this in the Betamax case and Ted Turner's WTBS.
These guys are up against Hollywood, the entire broadcast industry, the NFL, MLB, NHL, IOC and Kim f'n Kardashian. Not a chance in hell they will win.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321a9adecad047d5e9602deDean WormerThu, 13 Mar 2014 08:50:53 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321a9adecad047d5e9602de
Dude,
Lemmee esplane something to you. All of that content on those stations and the networks that feed them is copyrighted. It is licensed to particular outlets for a particular airing in a particular geography. It is how the local stations make a living and give you FREE entertainment. Yes free.
"The accounts and description of this game are the sole property of the National Football League. Any re-broadcast or re-transmission is strictly prohibited" Sound familiar?
It is what supports local news sports and weather. It is how the artists, writers and thousands of other people make a living. Why do you think it is OK to take their work, retransmit it, and keep the money?
It is private property. It is not yours to go resell to your friends, charge a fee and keep the profits. This is why the cable companies pay the networks. Ted Turner went through the same thing in the '80s with WTBS. there is plenty of case law on this.
A flimsy charade that this is some kind of DVR in the cloud, or micro antennas have no bearing. It's all about intent, and the intent is to steal copyrighted material and retransmit it on a mass scale
If by some remote chance Aereo wins, take a wild guess at what happens next. I can wait. Yup, the stations and networks will duplicate this stupid model and put him out of business in a heat beat.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53219f1d6bb3f7ea1e465f0dBitter LemonThu, 13 Mar 2014 08:05:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53219f1d6bb3f7ea1e465f0d
Actually it IS the job of a first world government to allow and give access to information to all its citizens. Thats one of the many things that classify a First World Nation. If this is by Tv, Radio or Internet is in the end irrelivent but they do have to provide which is why programs such as the BBC in Britain, ZDF/Das Erste in Germany and i guess CNN in USA (not sure on that one though, its just the biggest ami broadcasting network i know) exist.
This is also the basis the German government have used to base their un-diplomatic forced payments by every citizen to the ZDF, regardless of wether you even have a tv or radiohttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/532195bd6bb3f7da0c465f02pepsimaxThu, 13 Mar 2014 07:25:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532195bd6bb3f7da0c465f02
You make some very good points but does an antena and DVR have to be hardware? Surly they could be software which would make them virtual antennas etc. Similar to renting a cloud based server or software platform online, you are rarely actually renting an actual server or PC. Also, with regard to broadcasting outside of the area, I'm guessing they have that covered because the service is only available in certain cities.......http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53215ba96bb3f71b40d16440singapuraThu, 13 Mar 2014 03:18:01 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53215ba96bb3f71b40d16440
It's also not the job of the government to guarantee that everyone can receive radio and tv programs, even if they cannot afford it. An open marketplace for non-essential goods means that the supplier can ask whatever they want and the consumer can pay whatever they want. Eventually the price will end up in the middle.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532154926da811441ffc4e67SpirosThu, 13 Mar 2014 02:47:46 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532154926da811441ffc4e67
Excellent analysis...this situation is typical of an unregulated, oligo-polistic market...like many markets in the US which tend not to serve the consumer.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532148a9eab8eaea76fc4e69citizen1Thu, 13 Mar 2014 01:56:57 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532148a9eab8eaea76fc4e69
In the first place, Aereo is pure copyright infringement. After understanding that, the networks and the producers and advertisers lose because they specifically program certain shows at certain times, keeping in mind competition and 100 other things they've learned over 60 years, from competitive programming (example: drama on Network N competing against comedy on network A competing against an amateur talent show on network F and science fiction on network C) to the psychology of the time of day. The program producers create certain shows and the advertisers create certain ads to play at certain times - times of day, day of week, season of the year, and 100 other things.
It is bad enough for the networks and local broadcast stations that an end user could watch something he recorded at 7 PM on Sunday on Wednesday at 9:14 PM, but the Betamax decision made that legal when the recording and vieweing is done deliberately under the full personal control of the end user. (Which I agreed with even as I understood the broadcasters' displeasure, because making the recording and watching it would all be under the personal control of the end user. And there are cost and capacity limitations of the recording device.)
If the end user is watching something recorded on Sunday on Wednesday, he's not watching what is being broadcast live on Wednesday, and the program producers and the advertisers are hurt.
For example, "Saturday Night Live" wouldn't work well on Tuesday at 9:34 AM. Even with a name change, and even if it worked like it used to. Neither wouldthe ads which are specifically shown within the show during the Saturday 11:30 PM-Sunday 1 AM time. The ads' effectiveness is diminished at other times. Even when NBC shows the SNL repeat a week or two later at Saturday 10 PM, it is cut to an hour and there are different ads, because there is a somewhat different audience at that time. When pieces of SNL are shown on demand on Hulu, even the free part of Hulu, the clips are shown with different ads.
Aereo records everything all the time and plays back anything at any time, all as a massive copyright infringement in the first place. Imagine if this service was available to everyone in the country for free, it would destroy the broadcast network and broadcast stations and all of the programming and advertising. (Something could evolve to replace it, but Aereo is totally illegal in the first place.) Aereo might seem to be a good service at first, but its increasing success would lead to the destruction of the very content it steals.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532131646bb3f77b27d16441citizen1Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:17:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532131646bb3f77b27d16441
Maybe you can imagine my own irritation at my misspelling. Seriously, if you think my analysis is "not-quite-correct", add your corrections, please.
"Aereo" is a bad name. They should be put down just for that!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321235decad049c19fc4e67Javiér the JaguarWed, 12 Mar 2014 23:17:49 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321235decad049c19fc4e67
I had less of a problem with your not-quite-correct analysis than with being forced to see "Aereo" misspelled 9 times.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53210e5a69bedd770efc4e69citizen1Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:48:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53210e5a69bedd770efc4e69
I notice that I spelled Aereo wrong all the way through that. Sorry about that.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53210c396da811125ffc4e6dDennis954Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:39:05 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53210c396da811125ffc4e6d
One flaw in your argument. The network broadcasters either produce their own content or contract it out to third party producers. The content is broadcast over the airwaves or through cable networks. During the broadcast, they stuff the show full of advertising which covers the cost of production and earns them a nice profit. If Aereo is rebroadcasting the entire show including all the advertising, the network broadcasters are not losing anything and could possibly charge their advertisers more since more viewers are seeing their commercials. How do they lose?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532109b4eab8eaa77bfc4e6bDennis954Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:28:20 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532109b4eab8eaa77bfc4e6b
"CBS isn't losing shit because of Aereo" is not quite correct. CBS and the other networks charge the cable companies for broadcasting their content. If Aereo is allowed to continue, why would Comcast or any of the other cable companies pay those content fees when their customers can get it all from Aereo for $8 a month? I am not saying that Aereo shouldn't be allowed to continue, I welcome it. Cable needs competition. The fees they charge are outrageous and they force you to sign up for a package of channels, half of which you never watch. The cable companies have carved up the country among themselves and operate as regional monopolies. Companies like Aereo are great disrupters and force established companies to better serve their customers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321084569bedd2f7efc4e69citizen1Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:22:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321084569bedd2f7efc4e69
All commenters have skipped the main point. Aaero has good PR to blurify the issue. It's really simple.
Whether Aaero uses hundreds of tiny antennas (it does not, it is lying, right there) or one optimized antenna for each channel (it does), if it charged only for the service of superior quality of watching the broadcast channel within the FCC licensed broadcast range of the channel, LIVE as it is broadcast, there would be no legal problem. That was established in the 1950s as first "CATV" - Community Antenna TV (like one [or more] excellent optimized antenna on top of an apartment building to service everyone in the building) and then "Cable TV" got started doing exactly that, and a few lawsuits settled it and the broadcasters learned to enjoy the expansion of their live audience in their licensed range.
Aaero claims it "rents" a "personal DVR", but it does not. It records everything on all channels in one place, played on demand of the subscriber. This is massive total copyright infringement. The ancient Betamax case established that the end user could record a live broadcast that he receives for his personal use. Extending that into current technology and remaining legal, it could be legal for Aaero to actually provide an actual self-contained personal DVR device for each paying user under that user's direct control. Aaero does not do this. Aaero sucks up and stores all programming in one "device" (one networked computer device) and plays it back to the paying user on demand at any time.
Second explanation: it's legal for you watch the broadcast content live as it is presented, and it's legal for an independent company to provide superior quality of the LIVE broadcast and charge for that service. By the Betamax case, it's legal for you to record the broadcast content on your own recording device, for your use, as long as you don't charge for it or make copies. It's legal for you to rent a device under your control to record what you want to record and watch it from your recording device when you want to (this is a DVR provided to you in your home by your cable TV subscription). -- It's NOT legal for an independent company to record everything in one place then charge for access to playback at random and overlapping times. That's plain copyright infringement, simply for the making of the copies (even if the copies were distributed free), and damages can be calculated by how much was charged and multiplied by the deliberate intent of stealing and storing "free" broadcast content then charging for it. It's also a violation of FCC rules if Aaero has ever "streamed" something outside the original broadcaster's licensed broadcast area by even one mile. The FCC can be very harsh about such things - when they want to.
Simple case. I don't see why Aaero in its current form hasn't been put down by now. I don't see how Aaero ever thought they could get away with it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321084569bedd927efc4e67citizen1Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:22:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5321084569bedd927efc4e67
All commenters have skipped the main point. Aaero has good PR to blurify the issue. It's really simple.
Whether Aaero uses hundreds of tiny antennas (it does not, it is lying, right there) or one optimized antenna for each channel (it does), if it charged only for the service of superior quality of watching the broadcast channel within the FCC licensed broadcast range of the channel, LIVE as it is broadcast, there would be no legal problem. That was established in the 1950s as first "CATV" - Community Antenna TV (like one [or more] excellent optimized antenna on top of an apartment building to service everyone in the building) and then "Cable TV" got started doing exactly that, and a few lawsuits settled it and the broadcasters learned to enjoy the expansion of their live audience in their licensed range.
Aaero claims it "rents" a "personal DVR", but it does not. It records everything on all channels in one place, played on demand of the subscriber. This is massive total copyright infringement. The ancient Betamax case established that the end user could record a live broadcast that he receives for his personal use. Extending that into current technology and remaining legal, it could be legal for Aaero to actually provide an actual self-contained personal DVR device for each paying user under that user's direct control. Aaero does not do this. Aaero sucks up and stores all programming in one "device" (one networked computer device) and plays it back to the paying user on demand at any time.
Second explanation: it's legal for you watch the broadcast content live as it is presented, and it's legal for an independent company to provide superior quality of the LIVE broadcast and charge for that service. By the Betamax case, it's legal for you to record the broadcast content on your own recording device, for your use, as long as you don't charge for it or make copies. It's legal for you to rent a device under your control to record what you want to record and watch it from your recording device when you want to (this is a DVR provided to you in your home by your cable TV subscription). -- It's NOT legal for an independent company to record everything in one place then charge for access to playback at random and overlapping times. That's plain copyright infringement, simply for the making of the copies (even if the copies were distributed free), and damages can be calculated by how much was charged and multiplied by the deliberate intent of stealing and storing "free" broadcast content then charging for it. It's also a violation of FCC rules if Aaero has ever "streamed" something outside the original broadcaster's licensed broadcast area by even one mile. The FCC can be very harsh about such things - when they want to.
Simple case. I don't see why Aaero in its current form hasn't been put down by now. I don't see how Aaero ever thought they could get away with it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532105ff6da8110546fc4e6fJR WirthWed, 12 Mar 2014 21:12:31 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/532105ff6da8110546fc4e6f
That's exactly what Dean Wormer would say. There are millions of Dean Wormers out there, many in network television.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53210568ecad04fd28fc4e6bJR WirthWed, 12 Mar 2014 21:10:00 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/53210568ecad04fd28fc4e6b
Are these not "public airwaves?" They made the same argument with the VCR in the early 80's. This is about crushing innovation, something this country has become very, very good at.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320fe23eab8ea6559fc4e69Epic WinnerWed, 12 Mar 2014 20:38:59 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320fe23eab8ea6559fc4e69
We need to kick the crony capitalists OUT. It's not the job of the courts or government to guarantee a given business model will always be profitable, nor to protect it from competition with new innovators.
Want people to subscribe to cable? Then cable companies need to get out there and COMPETE in an open marketplace.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320f66e6bb3f78b5fd16440Dean WormerWed, 12 Mar 2014 20:06:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320f66e6bb3f78b5fd16440
If I sublet your house to some strangers while you were away, and I kept the profit, what's the hassle? You were not using it. Aereo is going to lose. they have a very flimsy argumenthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320f256ecad049d6efc4e67trecerWed, 12 Mar 2014 19:48:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320f256ecad049d6efc4e67
Back when the FCC approved the transition to digital broadcast, they chose an inferior broadcast protocol which extends the signal for a longer distance but is more easily subject to interruption by weather, trees, buildings, etc. As a result, we now have a bad digital broadcast system in this country compared to Asia and Europe, which use superior broadcast technology that prioritizes signal quality over signal reach. One reason Aereo is successful is because it helps address this signal weakness in the U.S., allowing people to have better tv reception. The networks have no legal argument against Aereo, since what the company does is essentially to charge a service for a superior delivery method of a product that is transmitted free anyway. Aereo's service is no more than a massive antenna booster (that also allows users to record programming). If it's legal to buy products at stores and resell them to people at their homes, with additional delivery fees (as already resolved by the courts in the Trader Joes case), then there's no reason why Aereo's model isn't also perfectly legal. The real reason CBS and the other networks are upset is because they view Aereo as threatening their own rebroadcast models on the internet. Why go to Hulu or cbs.com to view something if you can get it from Aereo for a lower price? But it's also a reflection of the schizophrenia that characterizes the networks, which haven't really figured out yet whether they want to continue with the broadcast model (and its millions of viewers, monetized by still significant but diminishing advertising profit) or switch to an internet platform (which would greatly reduce viewership but bring in money by subscription--in case you haven't noticed, ABC, NBC and CBS have all just started charging for archived content on their websites).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320e0a3ecad042f32fc4e6adknolaWed, 12 Mar 2014 18:33:07 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320e0a3ecad042f32fc4e6a
Moonves seems to forget he doesn't own the airwaves, we the people do and he can't just pull everything off because he's a petulant bitch. The Board and shareholder also won't allow that to happen.
CBS isn't losing shit because of Aereo, what a punk bitch.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320df92ecad047d2afc4e69rpWed, 12 Mar 2014 18:28:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320df92ecad047d2afc4e69
Or all they have to do is stream their shows at the same time they broadcast OTA and show the same exact commercials, and make the same per-user revenue.
And then Aereo's complicated delivery/business-model goes away.
Why a company would be completely okay broadcasting over the air, but think it's bad to stream of the internet is a question that I am failing to answer though.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320d66aeab8ea3641fc4e6bLaurence GlavinWed, 12 Mar 2014 17:49:30 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320d66aeab8ea3641fc4e6b
When broadcast TV went all-digital a few years ago, reception quality and reliability suffered greatly. Only a few stations stayed on VHF, which lost its technical advantage over UHF, while the great majority of broadcast TV stations operate on UHF. (For example: heritage channel 2 in New York City is actually on UHF channel 33; heritage channel 4 in Boston operates on channel thirty, etc).My main TV receiver is on cable, but I have a second set that picks up over-the-air TV with a powered indoor, directional antenna. Since UHF wavelengths are very short, I have to manipulate the antenna for stations that transmit in the same general area. The aforementioned channel "4" in Boston transmits from WEST of the junction of routes 128 and 9; channel "7" in Boston transmits from EAST of that location about a mile or so away. The Fox broadcast station in Boston is on yet another tower, and can require even more adjusting. Some people who decide to drop cable for broadcast may find themselves giving up one or more outlets they used to receive easily in the analog days.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320d3d46da8116c62fc4e7dhammermanWed, 12 Mar 2014 17:38:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320d3d46da8116c62fc4e7d
Ehh for $150 you can copy HD movies that run through your Comcast cable box
buy a Hauppauge HD-PVR and you have an archive of whatever is on your TV...Most people rent movies one time and keep the season forever in HD qualityhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320cfeceab8ea6028fc4e6eHero's DutyWed, 12 Mar 2014 17:21:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5320cfeceab8ea6028fc4e6e
Sigh. All the stations gotta do is go to court and prove that those little quarter-sized "antennas" can't possibly be the actual source of the signals. Thus the whole premise behind Aereo's legal argument is moot. Shouldn't be too damn hard.